This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-1156T
entitled 'Diversity at GAO: Sustained Attention Needed to Build on
Gains in SES and Managers' which was released on September 16, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the
District of Columbia, Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EDT:
Tuesday, September 16, 2008:
Diversity At GAO:
Sustained Attention Needed to Build on Gains in SES and Managers:
Statement of Frances Garcia:
Inspector General, GAO:
Diversity Report:
GAO-08-1156T:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the results of my review of
GAO's diversity programs and to participate in this hearing with the
other legislative branch Inspectors General (IG) examining diversity at
the top levels of five legislative branch agencies. As you know, in
today's multicultural workforce, diversity can be an organizational
strength that can bring a wide variety of perspectives and approaches
to bear on policy development and implementation, strategic planning,
and decision making. Organizations that promote and achieve a diverse
workplace can attract and retain high-quality employees. GAO--similar
to other federal agencies--faces both opportunities and challenges in
increasing the diversity of its top leadership and workforce. The
bottom line is that diversity makes good business sense.
Because of your interest in the effectiveness of diversity program
offices and the underrepresentation of women and minorities in
legislative branch agencies, my testimony today addresses (1) whether
GAO's diversity programs and initiatives are achieving better
representation of women and minorities in the agency's Senior Executive
Service (SES) and managerial ranks (GS-15), and their
equivalents;[Footnote 1] (2) the accuracy and completeness of the
fiscal year 2007 complaint and discrimination data reported to
Congress; and (3) the independent authority and reporting relationships
of the Managing Director of GAO's Office of Opportunity and
Inclusiveness (OOI). As you know, my testimony today is based on a
report requested by you and released today.[Footnote 2]
To address our first objective, we identified and compared GAO's
diversity management practices against those identified by the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Management Directive 715
(MD-715)[Footnote 3] and nine expert-identified leading diversity
management practices.[Footnote 4] In addition, we analyzed fiscal years
2002 through 2007 data on the number of women and minorities in SES and
managerial positions, and their equivalents. For the second objective,
we reviewed relevant GAO orders and procedures, including those on
processing discrimination complaints and internal controls regarding
data quality. We also analyzed supporting documentation for the fiscal
year 2007 complaint and discrimination data and interviewed key staff
and managers. For the third objective, we examined GAO's organizational
structure, policies and procedures; reviewed related reports, and
interviewed officials in GAO's Personnel Appeals Board (PAB), OOI, and
General Counsel. Our work did not include a detailed analysis of OOI to
determine what, if any, effect the consolidation of two administrative
functions (complaint processing and diversity management
responsibilities) into one office has had. We conducted our work from
March 2008 to September 2008 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Summary:
Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, GAO increased the diversity of both
its SES and managerial ranks. Moreover, GAO's SES and managers in
fiscal year 2007 were generally more diverse in comparison with
executive branch agencies and the civilian labor force.[Footnote 5] The
agency's top management has made a commitment to diversity management,
and our review showed that the agency uses a number of leading
diversity management practices to recruit, hire, promote, and retain
its employees. In addition, the agency has taken recent steps to
identify and address potential barriers[Footnote 6] to the advancement
and hiring of women, minorities, and individuals with disabilities. In
June 2008 GAO issued its congressionally mandated Workforce Diversity
Plan, which assessed the representation of women, minorities, and
people with disabilities throughout the agency. GAO's diversity plan
did identify representational gaps in the SES, the manager level in
certain job categories, and recent applicants for the SES candidate
program. In response, the agency is planning to target efforts on the
areas of greatest underrepresentation, such as Hispanics,[Footnote 7]
at all levels in the agency, and the Acting Comptroller General has
stated his intention to have GAO prepare these plans annually.
In reviewing GAO's March 2008 annual report to Congress and its Web
posting of complaint and discrimination data reported for fiscal year
2007, we found errors and could not verify the reported average number
of days that GAO spent processing complaints. [Footnote 8] For example,
although agency documents show that six employees filed complaints, GAO
reported seven in its annual report. In addition, GAO inadvertently
posted on its intranet and Web site the wrong data--which were for the
first quarter of fiscal year 2008--as if its were for the full fiscal
year 2007. The wrong data understated the number of complainants by 4,
the number of complaints by 13, and the number of multiple filers by 2.
In general, the errors were the result of inadequate procedures for
compiling and reporting all complaints and the agency not making full
use of its electronic complaint software. GAO's OOI has revised the
fiscal year 2007 data posted to its Web site and plans to take steps to
address other problems we identified.
Although GAO is not required to comply with EEOC management directives
to executive branch agencies, it has followed two of the three
requirements related to independent authority and reporting
relationships.[Footnote 9] Our work identified a concern regarding the
consolidation of personnel-related and discrimination complaint
functions in one office. Specifically, the PAB believes that OOI's
Managing Director is potentially open to charges of conflict of
interest because he is responsible for processing discrimination
complaints and also takes an active role in diversity programs--
programs that could themselves could be the subject of a discrimination
complaint. The PAB has recommended that GAO separate these two
administrative functions and create a unit exclusively for processing
discrimination complaints. GAO management has not agreed to implement
this recommendation, in part because the agency believes it would
result in an inefficient use of resources given the small number of
formal discrimination complaints filed each year. However, the annual
number of formal complaints only partially reflects the office's
workload. For example, in fiscal year 2007, although GAO employees
filed 15 formal discrimination complaints, about 130 GAO employees
informally contacted OOI about their concerns of unfair treatment.
Background:
As you well know, GAO performs a wide range of work. It conducts audits
and evaluations of executive branch agencies, resolves disputes over
awards of government contracts, and sets auditing and accounting
standards for the federal government. To do this work, the agency has a
highly educated, multidisciplinary workforce of around 3,100 employees
who work in Washington, D.C., and 11 field offices. It employs
analysts, auditors, economists, lawyers, and other professionals, and
more than half of the workforce has master's or doctoral degrees.
The GAO Personnel Act of 1980 gave the agency its own personnel system,
separate from that of the executive branch, and it increased the
agency's flexibility in hiring, paying, and managing its workforce. The
act also created the Personnel Appeals Board (PAB), a body independent
from GAO management, to hear GAO employee issues related to
discrimination and prohibited personnel actions and to conduct
oversight of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) programs.
In the past decade, GAO has taken steps toward diversity management,
which aims to create and maintain a positive work environment where the
similarities and differences of individuals are valued, so that all can
reach their potential and maximize their contributions to an
organization's strategic goals and objectives. In 2001, GAO created its
Office of Opportunity and Inclusiveness (OOI) and gave the office
responsibility for: (1) helping to create a fair and inclusive work
environment by incorporating diversity principles in GAO's strategic
plan and throughout its human capital policies and programs, (2)
handling discrimination complaints, and (3) managing the agency's EEO
activities. OOI has a total of six staff members, including the
Managing Director.
GAO Has Improved Diversity, and Information from Annual Diversity Plans
Will Help to Manage Future Progress:
GAO has made progress in building a more diverse profile of its SES and
managerial ranks. Moreover, as shown in figure 1, GAO's leadership is
generally more diverse in comparison with executive branch agencies and
the civilian labor force. At the same time, gaps remain in the
representation of women and minorities in the agency's leadership.
GAO's June 2008 Workforce Diversity Plan[Footnote 10] has identified
low representation of African-American women, Asian-
Americans,[Footnote 11] Hispanics, and individuals with targeted
disabilities[Footnote 12] among its SES and managers. The agency has a
variety of leading diversity management practices to help reshape its
workforce. The challenge facing GAO is to strategically manage its
efforts to efficiently and effectively achieve greater diversity in its
leadership. The Acting Comptroller General has stated that the agency
intends to annually prepare a diversity plan in the spirit of EEOC's MD-
715 guidance, which will provide the agency with information essential
to effectively and efficiently managing its diversity efforts.
Figure 1: Comparison of Percentage of Women and Minorities in GAO's
Senior Executive Service and at Manager Level with Executive Branch
Agencies and Civilian Labor Force, Fiscal Year 2007:
This figure is a combination of two vertical bar graphs showing a
comparison of percentage of women and minorities in GAO's senior
Executive service and at manager level with Executive branch agencies
and Civilian labor force, fiscal year 2007. The X axis in both graphs
represent the type of minority or gender and the Y axis represents the
percentage. The individual bars represent GAO, Executive branch
agencies, and Civilian labor force.
SES and equivalents:
Women;
GAO: 42.9;
Executive branch agencies: 29.1;
Civilian labor force: 45.7.
African American;
GAO: 11.1;
Executive branch agencies: 8.5;
Civilian labor force: 10.1.
American Indian/Alaska Native;
GAO: 0;
Executive branch agencies: 1.3;
Civilian labor force: 0.7.
Asian-American;
GAO: 4.8;
Executive branch agencies: 2.3;
Civilian labor force: 4.3.
Hispanic;
GAO: 1.6;
Executive branch agencies: 3.6;
Civilian labor force: 13.3.
Mangers (GS-15 and equivalents):
GAO: 45.6;
Executive branch agencies: 31.4;
Civilian labor force: 45.7.
African American;
GAO: 10.6;
Executive branch agencies: 7.7;
Civilian labor force: 10.1.
American Indian/Alaska Native;
GAO: 0;
Executive branch agencies: 0.9;
Civilian labor force: 0.7.
Asian-American;
GAO: 3.5;
Executive branch agencies: 7.8;
Civilian labor force: 4.3.
Hispanic;
GAO: 4.4;
Executive branch agencies: 4.1;
Civilian labor force: 13.3.
[See PDF for image]
Source: IG analysis of GAO and OPM data.
[End of figure]
GAO Has Made Gains in Overall Diversity and Faces Future Challenges:
Between fiscal years 2002 and 2007, GAO increased the number of women
in its SES from 45 to 54, or 20 percent. As a result, the proportion of
women in the SES went from 34 percent to 43 percent. The agency had
mixed success in increasing the number of minorities in the SES. The
agency had a slight increase in the number of African-Americans (from
12 to 14) but a decrease in the number of Asian-Americans (from 8 to 6)
and Hispanics (from 4 to 2). In GAO's June 2008 Workforce Diversity
Plan, the agency reported that the percentages of African-American and
Asian-American females in the SES have not increased at the same rate
as their respective percentages in the agency's overall workforce.
Moreover, the agency reported no representation of individuals with
targeted disabilities or American Indians/Alaska Natives in its SES.
EEOC considers a low representational rate to be a benchmark or
indicator of potential barriers to equal participation at all levels in
a federal agency that requires further study.
At the manager level during this same time, GAO steadily increased the
numbers of women and minorities. The manager level is the developmental
or "feeder" pool for the SES. The percentage of women managers went
from 39 percent to 46 percent, while the increases in minority
representation were smaller. For managers, GAO recently reported low
percentages for Hispanic females, African-American males, and Asian-
American females among Band III analysts. The agency also reported
having no African-Americans, Asian-Americans, or Hispanics in certain
manager-level administrative and professional-manager job categories.
GAO's SES candidate program has a significant effect on the diversity
of the SES because the agency uses it to promote many managers into the
SES ranks. For entry into the program, the agency uses a competitive
selection process that is open to both internal and external candidates
at the manager level. Participation in the program lasts about 18
months and includes special training and different work experiences to
develop executive competencies. Upon successful completion of the
program, candidates can gain an SES position without further
competition. Since October 2002, women have composed 22 (or 42 percent)
of the 52 total program participants. Minorities have composed 8 (or 15
percent) of all of the participants, although there were no American
Indians/Alaska Natives. In addition, the percentage of minorities in
the classes has fluctuated--from a high of 27 percent in 1 year to a
low of 9 percent in the September 2007 class.
In June 2008, GAO reported that no Asian-Americans, Hispanic males, or
African-American females applied for the September 2007 class of the
SES candidate program. The Managing Director of OOI said that the low
representation of minorities among recent applicants demonstrates that
without constant vigilance, progress could be lost, even though the
agency has generally been successful at attracting minorities to its
SES candidate program.
In the short term, the SES candidate program has the potential to help
GAO obtain a larger pool of diverse candidates for the SES because it
accepts applicants from both inside and outside the agency. In recent
years, the agency has hired two external applicants for this program.
According to agency officials we interviewed, past experience has shown
that external candidates often face an additional challenge of
assimilating into GAO's SES culture, which is steeped in audit
methodology and practices, while at the same time they must lead staff
who are knowledgeable about these practices and procedures.
GAO also directly hires employees at the SES and manager level. Direct
hiring has an effect on diversity, and in the short term, the hiring of
women and minorities could help improve diversity at these levels.
Between October 2002 and May 2008, GAO hired a total of 67 individuals
at the SES and manager level. Of these, 10 (15 percent) were minority
men and women and 21 (31 percent) were Caucasian females.
In its EEO oversight role, PAB has recommended that GAO review its SES
selection process, including the SES candidate program, to determine
whether any barriers may be having a negative effect on representation.
In response, the agency has stated that it regularly reviews the SES
selection processes and discusses how it can attract a greater
diversity of applications, including recruitment sources and
advertising with special interest groups.
GAO Uses Leading Practices, and Annual Diversity Plans Can Provide
Essential Information for Effective Management:
GAO has in place many of the leading diversity management practices
identified in EEOC's MD-715 guidance for a model EEO program and in a
GAO study of nine expert-identified leading diversity management
practices. For example, GAO's top executives, including the current
Acting Comptroller General and former Comptroller General, have made a
commitment to diversity management--a best practice identified by both
the EEOC and diversity management experts. For the past several years,
diversity management has been a regular item on the agenda at periodic
meetings of GAO's SES. Furthermore, GAO has taken recent action that
will identify representational gaps and eliminate unnecessary barriers
to hiring and advancement of women, minorities, and people with
disabilities.
In accordance with these leading practices, GAO has made diversity part
of its 5-year strategic plan, which sets out the agency's long-term
goals and objectives.[Footnote 13] One of the agency's four strategic
goals is to maximize the value of GAO by being a model federal agency
and world-class professional services organization. One objective for
this goal is to be an employer of choice with an environment that is
fair and unbiased and that values opportunity and inclusiveness. In
addition, GAO has incorporated diversity management in the performance
appraisal systems for its SES and other supervisors, as well as adopted
mediation to voluntarily resolve complaints of discrimination.
Moreover, as part of an ongoing effort to involve employees in its
diversity management, the agency recently created a Diversity Committee
with representatives from all employee groups, such as Blacks In
Government, the Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities, the
Asian American Liaison Group, the Gay and Lesbian Employees
Association, the Hispanic Liaison Group, and the International
Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers. The committee's
members will comment on new or revised GAO policies, procedures, plans,
and practices pertaining to diversity issues.
While GAO has improved the diversity of its SES and managerial ranks
and uses many leading diversity management practices, the agency has
not had a process for developing essential information on a regular
basis to effectively manage its diversity efforts. However, in June
2008 GAO issued its Workforce Diversity Plan, as requested in the
committee report for the legislative branch appropriations bill for
fiscal year 2008.[Footnote 14] Executive branch agencies are required
to do this plan annually. In developing its diversity plan, GAO chose
to follow EEOC's MD-715--the same guidance executive branch agencies
are required to use. In accordance with EEOC MD-715,[Footnote 15] GAO
analyzed workforce data to assess demographic trends and to determine
whether there were differences in the representation of minorities in
the agency's workforce when compared with the appropriate benchmarks,
such as . As a result, the agency now has baseline data on the
diversity of its workforce. In addition, it has identified a number of
potential barriers that may impede fair and open competition in the
workplace. The plan also includes the GAO's 2008-2009 Workforce
Diversity Action Plan, which lists three broad goals: (1) recruit more
Hispanics, African-Americans, and staff with disabilities; (2) enhance
staff-development opportunities that prepare staff for upper-level
positions; and (3) create a more inclusive environment. While the
action items are short-term activities, such as developing a diversity
recruitment and hiring plan by April 2009, some could lead to long-term
changes that affect diversity.
Last year, the agency awarded a contract to assess the factors that may
explain statistically significant differences in rating averages
between African-American and Caucasian analysts from 2002 to 2006. A
final report was issued on April 25, 2008, and it included more than 25
recommendations. Within a week, the Acting Comptroller General issued a
memorandum to employees expressing his commitment to address the
report's recommendations. GAO has already undertaken steps to implement
some of the recommendations and to establish a plan to implement other
recommendations.
Fiscal Year 2007 Complaints and Discrimination Data Contained Errors:
The No FEAR Act requires GAO to provide data on its complaints and
discrimination cases annually in a report to Congress and to post
updates of current fiscal year data on its Web site. In the annual
report, we found errors in the fiscal year 2007 data for the number of
complaints, the number of GAO employees who filed complaints, and the
basis of the complaints (such as race, gender, and religion). We also
could not verify the fiscal year 2007 data reported for complaint
processing times. In addition, when GAO posted complaint data earlier
this year on its intranet and Web site, it inadvertently published the
wrong data for fiscal year 2007. We determined that these and other
errors largely resulted from insufficient controls over the compilation
and reporting of the data, including not making full use of its
electronic complaint software.
In its March 2008 annual report to Congress, GAO had errors in fiscal
year 2007 complaints and discrimination data. Table 1 shows a
comparison of correct data to data included in GAO's annual report
regarding the number of complainants, complaints, and repeat filers--
those who have previously filed a complaint.
Table 1: Comparison of Correct and Reported Complaint Data for Fiscal
Year 2007:
Type of data: Complainants;
Correct data: 6;
Data in GAO annual report: 7.
Type of data: Complaints;
Correct data: 15;
Data in GAO annual report: 16.
Type of data: Repeat filers;
Correct data: 2;
Data in GAO annual report: 2.
Source: IG analysis of GAO information.
[End of table]
The annual report also contains errors related to the basis, or nature,
of the complaint. For example, the annual report overstates by two the
number of complaints based on religion, while it understates by eight
the number of complaints based on reprisals.
We traced the reasons for the errors in the annual report back to
insufficient internal controls to ensure the accuracy and completeness
of the data. For example, in developing the data, the responsible
person did not include all of the complaints or all of the information
about the complaints processed. Part of the problem involved complaints
that OOI did not process because they were filed against a person
within OOI.[Footnote 16] We found that OOI did not have procedures on
how to track complaints processed outside of OOI or how to report on
such complaints for purposes of the No FEAR Act. In addition, the
agency had no written procedures regarding the development and
verification of the data to ensure completeness and accuracy, and we
did not find any indication in the records we reviewed that the
person's work had been verified or reviewed by a supervisor.
Furthermore, we could not verify the processing times for fiscal year
2007 complaints in the annual report. We found that OOI, the unit
responsible for developing complaint data, does not have written
procedures for calculating and verifying the average number of days
that complaints were in the investigation stage and awaiting final
action by the agency. To compute these processing times, OOI staff used
an informal process and manually did the calculations. However, we
could not verify the calculations because the person who made the
calculations had little experience in this area, and the records of
their calculations were incomplete. In addition, OOI did not make full
use of its electronic complaint tracking software, which has the
capabilities to track and determine complaint processing times, because
of past difficulties in using the software. GAO specifically purchased
this software 5 years ago to improve the accuracy of its complaint
data. In response to these findings, the agency is planning to revise
its procedures to improve the accuracy of processing times, including
making full use of this software.
We also found that GAO inadvertently posted on its intranet and Web
site the wrong data for fiscal year 2007. The posted data--which were
for the first quarter of fiscal year 2008--were different from the
correct data. The posted data understated the number of complainants by
4, the number of complaints by 13, and the number of multiple filers by
2. The posted data also included errors regarding the basis of
complaints and the complaint processing times.
Concerns Continue about Integration of Discrimination Complaint
Processing and Diversity Efforts:
To ensure the fair and impartial processing of discrimination
complaints, EEOC's guidance on the federal sector EEO process for
executive branch agencies has three requirements regarding the
reporting relationship and independence of the heads of agency EEO
offices.[Footnote 17] Although GAO is not required to follow EEOC's
guidance, it adheres to two of the three requirements. We identified
concerns about the agency not following the third recommendation--
keeping the EEO functions separate from the personnel function. PAB, in
its EEO oversight capacity of GAO, has recommended that the agency
create a separate unit solely to process discrimination complaints.
EEOC's Management Directive 110, among other things, has three
requirements for the head of agency EEO offices regarding reporting
relationships and independence. First, to underscore the importance of
equal employment opportunity to an agency's mission and to ensure that
the EEO Director is able to act with the greatest degree of
independence, it requires that the EEO Director report directly to the
head of the agency. Second, to enhance the credibility of the EEO
office and the integrity of the EEO complaints process, it requires
that the EEO fact-finding function in general, and the legal
sufficiency reviews of final agency decisions for discrimination
complaints in particular, not be done by attorneys in a unit that
represents or defends the agency in such disputes. Third, to maintain
the integrity of the EEO investigative and decision-making processes,
the guidance requires that the EEO functions, especially investigations
and decision making, must be kept separate from the personnel function
to avoid conflicts of position or conflicts of interest, as well as the
appearance of such conflicts.
We found no problems with two requirements. The OOI Managing Director
reports directly to the Comptroller General, the head of GAO. In
addition, the OOI Managing Director, who is an attorney, does legal
sufficiency reviews of final agency decisions and arranges for
independent investigations. For the small number of complaints that OOI
staff have not directly processed, GAO's Chief Administrative Officer
assigns a manager to act on OOI's behalf, while General Counsel assigns
an attorney who is not in GAO's Legal Services unit to assist the
manager. Legal Services is part of GAO's Office of General Counsel and
serves as the agency's in-house legal counsel and represents the agency
in legal disputes.
PAB has reported about the potential for a real or apparent conflict of
interest because the OOI Managing Director is responsible for
overseeing discrimination complaints while having a substantial role in
GAO's human capital activities, including diversity programs--which is
a personnel function. PAB has pointed out that this situation does not
conform to the EEOC directive, which states, "... the same agency
official responsible for executing and advising on personnel actions
may not also be responsible for managing, advising, or overseeing the
EEO pre-complaint or complaint processes." An illustrative example of a
potential area of conflict is the OOI Managing Director's role in
reviewing employee performance ratings. He reviews selected ratings
before they are final to identify any potential EEO concerns, and he
then discusses his concerns with the appropriate SES official.
Therefore, if an employee were to file a discrimination complaint
because of a rating, the OOI Managing Director would have been involved
in a review for potential EEO concerns and still would be responsible
for the fair and impartial processing of the complaint.
PAB has recommended that GAO create a separate complaint unit to
process discrimination complaints exclusively and with no
responsibility for personnel, or human capital, issues. GAO has stated
that it does not believe that creation of a separate unit is warranted
due to the small number of discrimination complaints filed each year
and that the appearance of any conflict of interest is mitigated by GAO
contracting out its complaint investigations. PAB continues to believe
that a structural separation between the two administrative functions
is warranted. The scope of our review did not include a detailed
analysis of OOI to determine what effect, if any, the consolidation of
these functions has had on complaint processing.
Moreover, the small number of formal complaints does not reflect the
office's workload, the majority of which involve informal contacts with
the office and its efforts to resolve issues raised by GAO employees
without the filing of a formal complaint. For example, in fiscal year
2007, GAO employees filed 15 discrimination complaints, while about 130
employees made informal contacts to OOI. These contacts concerned a
range of issues, including appraisals, promotion, work assignments,
harassment, work environment, feedback, communication, and training.
Conclusions:
Although GAO has made progress, the task ahead--further increasing the
diversity of its leadership and workforce--is challenging. It will
require a concerted effort that must be sustained over time. The small
gains in minority representation in recent years will not be sufficient
for achieving a more diverse leadership.
To move forward, GAO needs to establish as part of its long-term
approach, an annual plan that evaluates its workforce data and helps
identify and remove unnecessary barriers to the advancement and hiring
of women, minorities, and people with disabilities. The agency has
taken a key step toward this end with its June 2008 Workforce Diversity
Plan and the Acting Comptroller General's stated intention to producing
a diversity plan annually. Because of GAO's transitional state with an
Acting Comptroller General, we believe the agency needs to formally
incorporate its intention into the order governing OOI's
responsibilities. By formally adopting the MD-715 annual review and
evaluation process, GAO will be better position to sustain attention on
the effects of its initiatives, use the evaluations as a basis for any
strategic improvements, and hold agency leadership accountable.
In addition, GAO needs to improve its internal complaint processing
procedures and the procedures related to compiling and reporting on
those complaints. This will help to avoid recent problems and ensure
that complaint data provided to others are accurate and reliable.
GAO may want to monitor the situation related to its decision not to
create a separate unit for processing discrimination complaints. Some
of the factors that the agency considered in its original decisions
seem to have changed, and the agency does face some risk of real or
apparent conflicts of position or conflicts of interest. Further, the
number of employees making informal contacts to OOI is substantial
compared with the number of discrimination complaints.
We have made recommendations in our report that is being released
today, and GAO has generally agreed with these recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may
have at this time.
Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
If you have any questions about this statement, please contact me at
(202) 512-5748 or garciaf@gao.gov. Key contributors to this statement
were Cathy L. Helm (Assistant Director) and Keith Steck.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] In GAO, SES positions and their equivalents are SES, Senior Level,
and executive schedule positions. GAO has few actual GS-15 positions;
their equivalents within GAO's pay systems are Band III analysts and
specialists (Assistant Directors), Level II managerial and supervisory
positions, Level-IV professional technical specialists, and Band III
attorneys (equivalent to Band II Attorneys in 2002-2004).
[2] GAO, Diversity at GAO: Sustained Attention Needed to Build on Gains
in SES and Managers, GAO-08-1098 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2008).
[3] EEOC, MD-715 Section I: The Model EEO Program.
[4] GAO, Diversity Management: Expert-Identified Leading Practices and
Agency Examples, GAO-05-90 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005)
[5] The civilian labor force is defined as those 16 and older
(including the federal workforce), regardless of citizenship, who are
employed or looking for work and are not in the military or
institutionalized. A minimum age of 18 is required for most federal
employment.
[6] EEOC defines barrier as an agency policy, principle, or practice
that limits or tends to limit employment opportunities for a particular
sex, race, or ethnic background, or based an individual's disability
status.
[7] Hispanics are underrepresented throughout the federal government
when compared to the U.S. civilian labor force, according to OPM.
[8] In accordance with the Notification and Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act), P.L. 107-
174, GAO is required to (1) annually report information related to
discrimination, harassment, and related matters; and (2) post quarterly
updates of these data on its Web site.
[9] EEOC, Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive 110,
Federal Sector Complaints Processing Manual (Nov. 9, 1999).
[10] GAO, Workforce Diversity Plan (June 2008).
[11] For purposes of our work, we are using the term, Asian-Americans
to include employees who identify their ethnicity and race as Asian,
Native Hawaiian, or other Pacific islander.
[12] Targeted disabilities are deafness, blindness, missing
extremities, partial paralysis, complete paralysis, convulsive
disorders, mental retardation, mental illness, and distortion of limb
and/or spine.
[13] GAO, GAO Strategic Plan 2007-2012, GAO-07-1SP (Washington, D.C.:
March 2007).
[14] U.S. House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Legislative Branch,
Committee on Appropriations, Legislative Branch Appropriations Bill,
2008, Report 110-198 (June 19, 2007). The committee report requested an
affirmative action plan.
[15] EEOC, Management Directive 715 (MD-715) Section II: Barrier
Identification and Elimination.
[16] As set forth in GAO's discrimination complaint resolution process
order, generally GAO employees are to file discrimination complaints
with OOI, which processes them. For complaints filed against OOI staff
or management, the order provides for a GAO top executive to assign
such complaints to other GAO managers so they may process the
complaints instead of OOI, as occurred in fiscal year 2007.
[17] EEOC, Management Directive 110.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: